I am the Founder & CEO of Ideasicle, a virtual marketing-ideas company pioneering the "Expert Sourcing" model. Prior to founding Ideasicle, I worked at some of the most creative advertising agencies in the world, including Wieden & Kennedy, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, Mullen and Arnold Worldwide. It was at these agencies that my passion for ideas (having them and witnessing their birth from others) was inspired and cultivated. It's also where I found my small pool of "Experts" for Ideasicle. I am a guest lecturer at Boston University, an agency pitch consultant on the side, and speak at marketing conferences around the country about the changing marketing landscape in the context of creativity and idea generation.

CBS Bans SodaStream Ad. Where's The Outrage?

CBSbanned SodaStream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.

The media’s job isn’t to judge.

SodaStream has a product that could be wildly disruptive to the soda industry, if successful. As in, the “automobile” to the soda industry’s “buggy whip.” If SodaStream takes off, Coke and Pepsi would have a lot to worry about, for sure. But isn’t that what progress is all about?

CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi. Those two brands spend big bucks on the Super Bowl and on the network, in general. I get it. But all CBS would have to do, if Coke and Pepsi put the pressure on, is say, “Hey, we’re just the unbiased middle man here. It’s not up to us what competitors of yours say about you.” There’s no need for the medium to have a say in the message.

Competitive battles should be fought in the marketplace.

If the SodaStream product is a better “soda idea” than Coke and Pepsi, then shouldn’t it be given a fair shot within any medium it decides to risk its dollars? If it’s not a better idea, the market will decide its fate, not CBS. But even beyond that obvious argument, it’s in CBS’s, and all media’s, interest to encourage unbridled competition. The more threatened a Coke and Pepsi feel, in this case, the more likely they are to launch new campaigns specifically targeting the threat. And that’s more money pouring into the media, not less. But Coke and Pepsi won’t do that now (or are less likely to), because CBS intervened, took the pressure off, and effectively sided with Coke and Pepsi.

I contacted Alex Bogusky, Person Of Interest with Fearless Creative, and creator of the SodaStream ad, and, no surprise, he agrees. “We get that Coke and Pepsi spend billions verses SodaStream’s millions but that’s a hard decision to rationalize. Especially when there is such a huge environmental advantage to the SodaStream model.”

No more ‘Davids’ allowed.

I also called veteran creative director, David Baldwin, of Baldwin&, to get his take with CBS’s move. He nailed it. “That’s a disturbing turn of events. No more Davids allowed I guess at CBS.”

And it’s so unnecessary. If CBS had simply played the “unbiased middleman” card in this case, there’s very little Coke and Pepsi could have done. They certainly would not have pulled their Super Bowl ads. Instead, Coke and Pepsi would have been forced to retrench and figure out a marketing way to solve this SodaStream problem and not a mafia way (I mean that metaphorically, of course).

Now, CBS has essentially opened the door for its biggest advertisers to forever complain about those “annoying little competitors” that are trying to steal share. “Take them off the air. Make them stop!” is what they will scream. “You did it for Coke and Pepsi.”

And it won’t only be CBS. All media will have to bear the burden of this biased, un-capitalistic, anti-progress, move. But, guess what? This isn’t the first time in recent months CBS has overplayed its hand.

Add the fact CBS banned the Dish Network “Hopper” and now we’ve got ourselves a trend.

You heard about this, I’m sure. CBS forced the staff at CNET to change the winner of “Best In Show” at CES this year because, presumably, the technology which had already won the honor, if successful, would mean less money for CBS. It was Dish Network’s “Hopper” technology which allows viewers to skip entire advertising pods with one click. Forbes Contributor, Erik Kain, wrote a great expose on this scandal recently, “CBS Forced CNET To Drop Its ‘Best Of CES 2013′ Winner, The Dish Hopper.”

So, we can now see what drives “CBS Standards & Practices.” It’s not freedom to express. It’s not truth in advertising. It’s not liberal causes (as Bogusky intimated, SodaStream is far better for the environment because it reduces trash). No, what drives CBS is money.

Another advertising expert I called was John Elder, President of Heat Advertising. He put CBS’s intentions this way, “If they are willing to make a public move like this involving a third party, what else is happening inside CBS that we never hear about?”

Indeed.

Again, where is the outrage?

Here’s mine. As one last act of personal defiance, below is the banned ad. I hope it gets a billion hits.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

shocked by collusion and conspiracy to keep competition from the market? your joking, right? how about giving advocates of hemp a chance to prove what a wonder plant it is. chemical, pharmaceutical, oil corporations would never try to block that would they?

Chilling effects have a tendency to spread sometimes. I’m pretty sure CBS isn’t prescient enough to predict exactly how this is going to affect other advertisers, small and not so small, in the future. Is it any wonder more and more of them look for alternatives to Big Media?

Well maybe just maybe the didn’t want to be involved in a lawsuit over SodaStreams illegal use of Trademarks? See you can sort of get away with that when you actually mention the product like ‘the taste preferred 2-1 over Pepsi’ but just using there logos in your promotion is a no no. And since when is a rip of artist like SodaStream the good guys. Have you seen what they charge! You’ll pay just as much even though you do all the work yourself. Fact is the actual cost for the ingredients is less then 2 cents per serving.

I could be wrong, Tim (been a while since I produced a tv spot), but I believe you can call out a competitor by name if what you’re saying is true. Now, in this case, the bottles of Coke won’t actually explode, of course. But the metaphor of “replacement” probably holds in this case. Maybe someone else on this thread knows for sure.

To your point about SodaStream being a rip-off, well, that may be true, but was beside the larger point here. If it is a rip-off, then, again, the marketplace will take care of them.